ASA Adjudication on Brady Corporation Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing for Seton was enclosed in a brown window envelope addressed to recipients. Underneath the window the envelope stated "Legal Compliance - Action Required".

Issue

1. The complainant challenged whether the envelope was misleading and likely to cause distress, because it implied that the mailing contained legal documentation that required the recipient to take action.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the Code because it did not make clear that it was a marketing communication.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Brady Corporation Ltd t/a Seton Ltd (Seton) said the purpose of the mailing was to alert employers to the fact that they were breaking the law if they did not display a Health and Safety poster in the workplace. They believed that the title of the letter within the mailing made this clear and said the wording of the envelope was truthful because action would be required by recipients who did not already display the poster. In relation to causing distress, Seton said the CAP Code was aimed at graphic or traumatising advertisements that could upset readers and did not believe their ad could cause the same level of fear or distress.

2. Seton said the reverse of the envelope stated their company name and that the contents of the mailing made their identity clear.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the claim "Legal Compliance - Action Required" on the envelope was likely to be understood by consumers to mean that it was necessary for them to take immediate action in order to be compliant with the law and that the mailing contained that documentation. We considered that the implication in the ad that the recipient may be in breach of the law, without making clear that only employers who failed to display the poster would need to take action, was likely to cause fear or distress without good reason to readers about the action they needed to take. We also considered that the claim "Legal Compliance" misleadingly implied to readers that the mailing contained legal documentation which was not the case. We therefore concluded the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses CAP Code clauses 7.1, 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 9.1(Fear and distress).

2. Upheld

We noted Setons argument that their company name featured on the reverse of the mailing as a return address, but considered that this was insufficient to make clear to readers that the mailing was a marketing communication. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 22.1(Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Seton to ensure that future mailings made clear before opening that they were marketing communications and accurately described their contents. We told Seton to avoid making similar claims that were likely to mislead or distress readers about what, if any, action they needed to take in order to be compliant with the law.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)